Paper short abstract:

In this paper I would talk about the very notion of the ethics of resistance looking into the construction and conceptualization of a revolutionary subjectivity in cultural representation of Naxalbari Movement in Bengal which I would illustrate through a few examples of some cultural productions of the contemporary period.

Paper long abstract:

In this paper I would talk about the very notion of the ethics of resistance looking into the construction and conceptualization of a revolutionary subjectivity in cultural representation of Naxalbari Movement in Bengal. Taking the clue from Spivak I would try to show that to ask "Can the Revolutionary Subject (read subaltern) Speak?" is not to declare them speechless but to demonstrate why and how the 'place' where one cannot speak produces the subject of revolution out of that speechlessness. Spivak pointed out rightly that the negation of subjectivity as a construction is to bring back the subject from the backdoor. Even if it is a construction - a figuration - it has to have a certain kind of reality effect. To forget the figuration is not to negate it but to render it invisible. To read the revolution of the past I shall assume it at the same time to be dead and haunting the present just as Derrida talks about the presence of the dead other as radical alterity always already within the self. Past revolution in this strategy shall not be an essential category but as fragments existing and haunting the body of the present - it exists in form of remnants - disfiguring history and narrative catachrestically - in excess of definition. I would illustrate this through a few examples of the remnants of revolutionary past in some cultural productions of the contemporary period.