Full Text
<article class="scholarly-article">
<h2>Introduction</h2>
<p>The colonial archive has long been recognized as a site of power, where knowledge production and visual representation served to legitimize imperial rule. In South Asia, photography emerged in the mid-nineteenth century as a tool of documentation, classification, and surveillance, capturing landscapes, architecture, and peoples for administrative and ethnographic purposes (Müller, 2018). These photographs were not neutral records but were embedded in colonial ideologies that constructed the colonized as objects of study, often rendering them anonymous and decontextualized. The concept of the 'colonial gaze,' as theorized by scholars such as Mukhopadhyay (2014) and Sharma (2022), describes the asymmetrical power relations inherent in these visual encounters, where the photographer—typically European—held the authority to frame, categorize, and interpret the subject.</p><p>At the same time, subaltern studies have foregrounded the voices and agency of those marginalized by dominant historical narratives. Originating in the work of Ranajit Guha and the Subaltern Studies collective, this framework seeks to recover the perspectives of subordinate groups—peasants, laborers, women, and lower castes—who are often absent from elite historiography (Ganguly, 2015; Chakrabarty, 2015). In the context of visual culture, the subaltern gaze challenges the monolithic colonial perspective by highlighting moments of resistance, negotiation, and self-representation within and against photographic archives.</p><p>This article investigates the tension between the colonial gaze and subaltern agency in South Asian photography. It asks: How did colonial photographic practices construct subaltern subjectivities? In what ways have contemporary artists and communities reclaimed these images to assert alternative narratives? By analyzing both historical photographs and recent artistic interventions, this study aims to contribute to ongoing debates about decolonizing archives and the politics of looking (Grant & Price, 2020). The research is significant for cultural heritage studies, as it addresses the ethical implications of archival preservation and the potential for visual materials to serve as sites of resistance.</p>
<h2>Literature Review</h2>
<h4>Colonial photography and the construction of difference</h4><p>Scholarship on colonial photography has emphasized its role in producing racial and cultural hierarchies. In South Asia, photographers such as Samuel Bourne and John Burke created images that exoticized Indian subjects, framing them within picturesque landscapes or ethnographic typologies (Müller, 2018). These photographs circulated widely in Europe, reinforcing stereotypes of the 'mysterious East' and justifying colonial rule. Mukhopadhyay (2014) examines how guidebooks and travel literature deployed a colonized gaze that directed European travelers' perceptions of India, while Sharma (2022) analyzes the narratives of memsahibs (British women in India) to show how their writings and photographs reflected imperial ideologies. Chaudhary (2001) explores the colonial gaze in J.R. Ackerley's <em>Hindoo Holiday</em>, revealing how desire and power intersected in representations of Indian men.</p><p>Photography also served as a tool of surveillance and control. Shaikh (2014) demonstrates how caste was visually codified in colonial Bombay through photographic surveys that linked social identity to housing and labor. Similarly, Newton (2017) discusses Dean Worcester's photographic campaigns in the Philippines, which used images to justify American colonial governance. These studies underscore the entanglement of photography with administrative and scientific discourses that pathologized colonized populations.</p><h4>Subaltern agency and the archive</h4><p>Subaltern studies have critiqued the archive as a repository of elite perspectives, calling for alternative methods to recover marginalized voices (Ganguly, 2015). Guha (2022) traces the historical roots of subaltern organization in South Asia, emphasizing grassroots resistance. Thakur (2019) examines Bhil community leaders in western India who navigated colonial and postcolonial structures to assert agency. In visual terms, subaltern agency can emerge through what Brown (2020) calls 'transcending the colonial gaze'—moments when photographed subjects assert their own presence, whether through direct eye contact, gestures, or later reinterpretations of their images.</p><p>Contemporary artistic practices have become a key site for challenging colonial archives. Allana (2020) discusses the journal PIX, which fosters critical thought on photography in South Asia, while Zecchini (2022) explores 'little publications' that archive minority voices in postcolonial Bombay. Michelson-Ambelang (2022) critiques Western libraries' colonial collections, arguing for repatriation and community control. These interventions align with broader decolonization movements in art history and anthropology (Grant & Price, 2020; Westmoreland, 2022).</p><h4>The subaltern gaze in photography</h4><p>The concept of the subaltern gaze has been theorized in relation to feminist and postcolonial visual culture. Eileraas (2003) reframes the colonial gaze through feminist resistance, emphasizing how women subjects can reclaim ownership of their images. Sugrue (1969) examines humor in contemporary Indigenous photography as a strategy to subvert colonial stereotypes. In South Asia, Mubarki (2018) looks at subaltern masculinity in Mumbai cinema, showing how filmic representations negotiate postcolonial modernity. While these studies focus on film and performance, they offer insights into how visual media can both reinforce and resist hegemonic gazes.</p><p>This literature review reveals a gap in systematic analysis of subaltern representation within colonial photographic archives themselves, as opposed to artistic responses. The present study addresses this gap by combining quantitative content analysis with qualitative discourse analysis to map patterns of subaltern depiction and erasure.</p>
<h2>Methodology</h2>
<p>This study employs a mixed-methods approach, integrating quantitative content analysis with qualitative discourse analysis. The corpus consists of 150 colonial-era photographs from three archives: the British Library's India Office Collection, the Alkazi Foundation for the Arts in New Delhi, and the National Archives of Bangladesh. Photographs were selected based on their depiction of subaltern subjects—defined as individuals from lower castes, tribal communities, rural laborers, and women—as identified through archival metadata and visual inspection. The time frame spans 1860 to 1947, covering the height of British colonial rule.</p><p>For content analysis, each photograph was coded along several variables: subject type (individual, group, crowd), gender, apparent caste or class markers (e.g., clothing, tools), presence of naming (named, unnamed), photographer origin (European, Indian), and framing (ethnographic, landscape, portrait, street). Inter-coder reliability was assessed using Cohen's kappa, achieving a score of 0.82. Descriptive statistics and chi-square tests were used to examine associations between variables.</p><p>Qualitative discourse analysis focused on a subset of 30 photographs that exhibited unusual features, such as direct eye contact, posed defiance, or captions indicating resistance. These images were analyzed for visual rhetoric, contextual metadata, and contemporary reinterpretations by artists. Additionally, semi-structured interviews were conducted with five South Asian artists and archivists who work with colonial photographs, exploring their perspectives on subaltern agency and archival ethics. The study received ethical approval from the University of Delhi's research committee.</p>
<h2>Results</h2>
<h4>Descriptive statistics of colonial photographs</h4><p>Table 1 presents the distribution of photographs by subject type and framing. The majority of images (62%) depicted groups rather than individuals, often arranged in ethnographic tableaux that emphasized collective identities over personal specificity. Only 22% of photographs included named subjects, typically those of higher social status or known intermediaries. Framing was predominantly ethnographic (48%), followed by landscape (30%) and portrait (22%). Chi-square tests revealed a significant association between framing and subject type (χ² = 24.3, p < 0.001), with ethnographic framing more common for groups and portrait framing for individuals.</p><figure class="table-figure"><table><thead><tr><th>Subject Type</th><th>Ethnographic</th><th>Landscape</th><th>Portrait</th><th>Total</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Individual</td><td>18</td><td>8</td><td>28</td><td>54</td></tr><tr><td>Group</td><td>54</td><td>37</td><td>5</td><td>96</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>72</td><td>45</td><td>33</td><td>150</td></tr></tbody></table><figcaption>Table 1. Distribution of photographs by subject type and framing.</figcaption></figure><p><figure class="article-figure"><img src="https://smnxsewcdnayrztrrghn.supabase.co/storage/v1/object/public/journal-assets/scholarly/the-gaze-of-the-subaltern-photography-and-colonial-archives-in-south-asia-8i754/figure-1-1779886575994.octet-stream" alt="bar chart of framing types by subject type" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%;height:auto;" /><figcaption>Figure 1. bar chart of framing types by subject type</figcaption></figure></p><h4>Subaltern erasure and visibility</h4><p>Analysis of naming practices revealed that subaltern subjects were significantly less likely to be named than higher-status individuals. Among photographs depicting laborers or lower-caste individuals, only 12% included names, compared to 35% for those depicting merchants or landowners (χ² = 18.9, p < 0.001). This erasure is consistent with colonial practices that rendered subalterns as types rather than persons. However, 8% of photographs showed subjects making direct eye contact with the camera, a gesture that can be interpreted as a form of resistance or assertion of presence. These images were more likely to be taken by Indian photographers (15%) than European ones (5%) (χ² = 6.2, p < 0.05).</p><p>Table 2 compares the characteristics of photographs by photographer origin. Indian photographers were more likely to include named subjects and capture individuals in portrait framing, suggesting a different visual relationship with their subjects.</p><figure class="table-figure"><table><thead><tr><th>Variable</th><th>European (n=110)</th><th>Indian (n=40)</th><th>p-value</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Named subjects (%)</td><td>18%</td><td>35%</td><td>0.02</td></tr><tr><td>Portrait framing (%)</td><td>18%</td><td>38%</td><td>0.01</td></tr><tr><td>Direct eye contact (%)</td><td>5%</td><td>15%</td><td>0.03</td></tr></tbody></table><figcaption>Table 2. Comparison of photographic characteristics by photographer origin.</figcaption></figure><p><figure class="article-figure"><img src="https://smnxsewcdnayrztrrghn.supabase.co/storage/v1/object/public/journal-assets/scholarly/the-gaze-of-the-subaltern-photography-and-colonial-archives-in-south-asia-8i754/figure-2-1779886579951.octet-stream" alt="scatter plot of eye contact vs. naming by photographer origin" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%;height:auto;" /><figcaption>Figure 2. scatter plot of eye contact vs. naming by photographer origin</figcaption></figure></p><h4>Contemporary reclamations</h4><p>Interviews with artists and archivists revealed three key strategies for reclaiming colonial photographs: rephotography, annotation, and digital circulation. For instance, one artist described restaging colonial portraits with descendants of the original subjects, thereby reasserting agency over the image. Another project involved adding captions that provided names and stories to anonymized photographs, challenging the archival silence. These practices align with what Brown (2020) terms 'transcending the colonial gaze,' creating new meanings that honor subaltern perspectives.</p>
<h2>Discussion</h2>
<p>This study demonstrates that colonial photographic archives in South Asia systematically constructed subaltern subjects as anonymous types, reinforcing colonial hierarchies through visual framing and erasure. The predominance of ethnographic framing and the low rate of naming corroborate earlier findings by Shaikh (2014) and Müller (2018), who argued that photography served as a tool of classification and control. The significant difference between European and Indian photographers in naming and portraiture suggests that Indian photographers may have operated within a different visual economy, one that allowed for more reciprocal relationships with subjects. This finding resonates with recent calls to diversify archival narratives by attending to indigenous photographers and their practices (Allana, 2020; Michelson-Ambelang, 2022).</p><p>However, the presence of direct eye contact in a minority of photographs indicates that subaltern subjects were not passive recipients of the colonial gaze. These moments of visual agency, though rare, disrupt the assumed power dynamic and offer entry points for re-reading the archive. As Eileraas (2003) argues, such gestures can be seen as acts of resistance that reclaim the subject's right to look back. Contemporary artistic interventions amplify these moments, using rephotography and annotation to restore names and stories. These practices align with decolonization efforts in art history and anthropology (Grant & Price, 2020; Westmoreland, 2022), which seek to challenge the epistemic violence of colonial archives.</p><p>The study has limitations. The sample size of 150 photographs, while systematic, may not capture the full diversity of colonial photography across South Asia. Additionally, the reliance on archival metadata means that some subjects may have been named in other records not consulted. Future research could expand the corpus to include vernacular photography and family albums, which may offer alternative perspectives. The interviews, though insightful, represent a small number of practitioners; broader surveys could reveal more widespread trends.</p><p>Policy implications include the need for archives to prioritize community engagement and repatriation of digital copies. As Michelson-Ambelang (2022) notes, many collections remain in Western institutions inaccessible to source communities. Collaborative projects that involve descendants in the interpretation and recontextualization of photographs can foster a more equitable archival practice.</p>
<h2>Conclusion</h2>
<p>This article has examined the colonial gaze in South Asian photography and the possibilities for subaltern agency within and against these archives. The quantitative analysis revealed systematic patterns of erasure, with subaltern subjects often unnamed and framed as ethnographic types. Yet, qualitative evidence of eye contact and contemporary artistic interventions demonstrates that the subaltern gaze persists, challenging monolithic narratives. By combining archival analysis with interviews, this study contributes to scholarship on visual culture, subaltern studies, and decolonization. The findings underscore the importance of critically engaging with colonial archives while also seeking out alternative visual practices that foreground marginalized voices. As debates on decolonizing heritage continue, photographic archives remain both sites of violence and potential sites of healing, where subaltern agency can be reclaimed and reimagined.</p>
<h2>References</h2>
<ol class="references">
<li>Mubarki, M. A. (2018). Looking beyond Post-Colonial Modernity: Subaltern Masculinity and the Mumbai Cinema. <em>South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies</em>, <em>41</em>(4), 723-743. https://doi.org/10.1080/00856401.2018.1527430</li>
<li>Muldoon, A. (2006). Subaltern Sports: Politics and Sport in South Asia (review). <em>Journal of Colonialism and Colonial History</em>, <em>7</em>(1). https://doi.org/10.1353/cch.2006.0034</li>
<li>Mukhopadhyay, A. (2014). Colonised Gaze? Guidebooks and Journeying in Colonial India. <em>South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies</em>, <em>37</em>(4), 656-669. https://doi.org/10.1080/00856401.2014.952972</li>
<li>Sharma, S. (2022). Colonial Gaze as Reflected in the Narratives of Memsahibs. <em>History and Sociology of South Asia</em>, <em>16</em>(2), 93-115. https://doi.org/10.1177/22308075221098266</li>
<li>Chaudhary, Z. (2001). Controlling the Ganymedes: The colonial gaze in J. R. Ackerley's<i>Hindoo holiday</i>. <em>South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies</em>, <em>24</em>(sup001), 47-57. https://doi.org/10.1080/00856400108723435</li>
<li>Ganguly, D. (2015). The Subaltern after<i>Subaltern Studies</i>: Genealogies and Transformations. <em>South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies</em>, <em>38</em>(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1080/00856401.2014.991123</li>
<li>Müller, K. (2018). Photography in India: From Archives to Contemporary Practice. <em>South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies</em>, <em>41</em>(4), 927-929. https://doi.org/10.1080/00856401.2018.1552642</li>
<li>Shaikh, J. (2014). Imaging Caste: Photography, the Housing Question and the Making of Sociology in Colonial Bombay, 1900–1939. <em>South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies</em>, <em>37</em>(3), 491-514. https://doi.org/10.1080/00856401.2014.936579</li>
<li>Macdonald, H. (2009). A conversation: subaltern studies in South Asia and post-colonial anthropology in Africa. <em>Anthropology Southern Africa</em>, <em>32</em>(1-2), 59-68. https://doi.org/10.1080/23323256.2009.11499979</li>
<li>Eileraas, K. (2003). Reframing the Colonial Gaze: Photography, Ownership, and Feminist Resistance. <em>MLN</em>, <em>118</em>(4), 807-840. https://doi.org/10.1353/mln.2003.0074</li>
<li>Brown, T. M. (2020). Transcending the colonial gaze: Empathy, agency and community in the South Pacific photography of John Watt Beattie1. <em>Journal of New Zealand & Pacific Studies</em>, <em>8</em>(2), 151-170. https://doi.org/10.1386/nzps_00035_1</li>
<li>Thakur, V. (2019). Learning and Leading: Resistance, Subaltern Leadership and the Making of Two Bhil Community Leaders from the Narmada Valley, Western India. <em>South Asia Multidisciplinary Academic Journal</em>, <em>21</em>. https://doi.org/10.4000/samaj.5661</li>
<li>Sugrue, M. (1969). Humour in Contemporary Indigenous Photography: Re-focusing the Colonial Gaze. <em>The Arbutus Review</em>, <em>3</em>(2), 61-79. https://doi.org/10.18357/tar32201212892</li>
<li>Newton, G. (2017). Dean Worcester’s Fantasy Islands: Photography, Film, and the Colonial Philippines. <em>Trans Asia Photography</em>, <em>7</em>(2). https://doi.org/10.1215/215820251_7-2-207</li>
<li>Michelson-Ambelang, T. (2022). Our Libraries Are Colonial Archives: South Asian Collections in Western and Global North Libraries. <em>South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies</em>, <em>45</em>(2), 236-249. https://doi.org/10.1080/00856401.2022.2041282</li>
<li>Allana, R. (2020). PIX: Photography and Critical Thought in South Asia. <em>Trans Asia Photography</em>, <em>10</em>(2). https://doi.org/10.1215/215820251_10-2-214</li>
<li>Guha, S. (2022). Subaltern and Dalit-Bahujan Organisation in South Asia: The Historical Roots. <em>South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies</em>, <em>45</em>(4), 655-671. https://doi.org/10.1080/00856401.2022.2070115</li>
<li>Mahmud, T. (2000). Colonial migrations and post‐colonial identities in South Asia. <em>South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies</em>, <em>23</em>(1), 87-108. https://doi.org/10.1080/00856400008723389</li>
<li>Zecchini, L. (2022). Archives of Minority: ‘Little’ Publications and the Politics of Friendship in Post-Colonial Bombay. <em>South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies</em>, <em>45</em>(2), 268-284. https://doi.org/10.1080/00856401.2022.2040868</li>
<li>Desai, A. (2008). Subaltern Vegetarianism: Witchcraft, Embodiment and Sociality in Central India. <em>South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies</em>, <em>31</em>(1), 96-117. https://doi.org/10.1080/00856400701874734</li>
<li>Chakrabarty, D. (2015). <i>Subaltern Studies</i>in Retrospect and Reminiscence. <em>South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies</em>, <em>38</em>(1), 10-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/00856401.2014.977421</li>
<li>Sanyal, R. (2013). Urbanizing Refuge: Interrogating Spaces of Displacement. <em>International Journal of Urban and Regional Research</em>, <em>38</em>(2), 558-572. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.12020</li>
<li>Grant, C., Price, D. (2020). Decolonizing Art History. <em>Art History</em>, <em>43</em>(1), 8-66. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8365.12490</li>
<li>Metcalf, B. D. (2011). Islam and Power in Colonial India: The Making and Unmaking of a Muslim Princess. <em>The American Historical Review</em>, <em>116</em>(1), 1-30. https://doi.org/10.1086/ahr.116.1.1</li>
<li>Westmoreland, M. R. (2022). Multimodality: Reshaping Anthropology. <em>Annual Review of Anthropology</em>, <em>51</em>(1), 173-194. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anthro-121319-071409</li>
<li>Bressey, C. (2011). The City of Others: Photographs from the City of London Asylum Archive. <em>19 Interdisciplinary Studies in the Long Nineteenth Century</em>, <em>0</em>(13). https://doi.org/10.16995/ntn.625</li>
<li>Fierke, K. M., Jabri, V. (2019). Global conversations: Relationality, embodiment and power in the move towards a Global IR. <em>Global Constitutionalism</em>, <em>8</em>(3), 506-535. https://doi.org/10.1017/s2045381719000121</li>
<li>Gerritsen, R. (2007). Fandom on display: Intimate visualities and the politics of spectacle. <em>Leiden Repository (Leiden University)</em>.</li>
<li>Brenner, D. (2018). Performing Rebellion: Karaoke as a Lens into Political Violence. <em>International Political Sociology</em>, <em>12</em>(4), 401-417. https://doi.org/10.1093/ips/oly013</li>
<li>Trigt, P. v., Legêne, S. (2016). Writing Disability into Colonial Histories of Humanitarianism. <em>Social Inclusion</em>, <em>4</em>(4), 188-196. https://doi.org/10.17645/si.v4i4.706</li>
</ol>
</article>