Translating Peasant Resistance to Anti-Colonialism: the Ghadar Party in Punjab, 1914-1915
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Ghadar Party introduced a radical anti-colonial praxis to Punjab, British India, in the early 1910s. Much of the literature on the Ghadar Party situates the birth of the movement among Punjabi peasants along the Pacific coast of North America who returned to their homeland intent on waging an anti-colonial mutiny. Harish Puri (1993) locates the failure of the Ghadar Party in the impossibility of translating their migrant political consciousness among their co-patriots in Punjab. Further, he argues that their lack of organization skills led to their demise. I argue in this paper that the Ghadar Party's political organizing made attempts at translating anti-colonial ideology into Punjab. This was accomplished through translating extant forms of peasant resistance, such as banditry and mutiny, into the social and political context of 1910s Punjab. Further, the appearance of lack of organization really was a belief in organized spontaneity and an under-mediated notion of rebellion.The Ghadar Party introduced a radical anti-colonial praxis to Punjab, British India, in the early 1910s. Much of the literature on the Ghadar Party situates the birth of the movement among Punjabi peasants along the Pacific coast of North America who returned to their homeland intent on waging an anti-colonial mutiny. Harish Puri (1993) locates the failure of the Ghadar Party in the impossibility of translating their migrant political consciousness among their co-patriots in Punjab. Further, he argues that their lack of organization skills led to their demise. I argue in this paper that the Ghadar Party's political organizing made attempts at translating anti-colonial ideology into Punjab. This was accomplished through translating extant forms of peasant resistance, such as banditry and mutiny, into the social and political context of 1910s Punjab. Further, the appearance of lack of organization really was a belief in organized spontaneity and an under-mediated notion of rebellion.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".